I believe this was before the homepage was altered to display the ruling. Moreover, this was also just 2 days before the iPad mini was announced. Far more likely this is just related to new product announcements than any nefarious scheme.

The US site alternates between two different promotions, the iPad Mini and the iPad with Retina Display. Every other language's site (I've tried quite a few) which promotes the iPad Mini is showing just a single promotion and exhibits the resize behaviour.

Yep. Here's an example from the Japan site, where you can see the repositioning of the iPad Mini graphic when the browser window is made larger. The UK site has the same behaviour. I don't think there's anything dodgy going on.

So anything, any time, that alters the vertical spacing of the Apple homepage around the world, even if it's only 2 days before a major product roll-out is related to an 15pt font paragraph at the bottom of their UK homepage that no-one except the lawyers will even click on? Moreover, given that they've pissed off the judge once, their own lawyers won't have signed off on 5 times over?

You won't find the same behavior on the identical "hero" and product elements of apple.com; far more likely that they want nothing leaking below the fold, on the non-US sites, and inviting users to scroll.

I for one decided my recent seven inch tablet purchase and now my upcoming ten inch tablet purchase based on Apple's bad behavior. This just reinforces the idea in my head that I made the right choice. The Nexus tablets offer an incredible amount of features at a price point Apple doesn't even try to compete at and all without the Assholiness of Apple

That's the second time you post an almost identical comment in a thread about people not buying apple products due to their behaviour and you're telling them they are not truthful.

What reason would someone have to say anything whatsoever about a decision they've made? It's not as if they have Samsung stock or are shorting Apple. They are simple statements of fact. If someone states something about themselves then your best bet is to believe they know better than you what made them decide.

> That's the second time you post an almost identical comment in a thread about people not buying apple products due to their behaviour and you're telling them they are not truthful.

Actually I was arguing that they aren't buying Apple products because of this particular incident, not their overall behaviour. That I buy, it's a small segment of the population but it does exist.

However I'm seriously skeptical that anyone would actually choose an Android tablet instead of an iPad because of this particular incident. It's a ridiculous prospect, and indicative of a consumer that has no real preferences about the device they buy, they're just running purely on spite.

GP basically just came right out and said that.

> If someone states something about themselves then your best bet is to believe they know better than you what made them decide.

I'm not allowed to apply critical thinking skills to statements others make about themselves? That's pretty ridiculous. And since when did I argue against that? I'm sure he does know his motivations better than I. That doesn't mean for a second that he's being honest with us or himself about those motivations.

> However I'm seriously skeptical that anyone would actually choose an Android tablet instead of an iPad because of this particular incident. It's a ridiculous prospect, and indicative of a consumer that has no real preferences about the device they buy, they're just running purely on spite.

People make decisions based on many factors:

- price

- utility

- brand loyalty / brand image

I have several Apple devices in my household, until they better their ways on the legal front there will not be another. In my case that meant that I bought one device from an Apple competitor, and held off on another purchase because I can't find something that suits my needs that does not have an Apple logo on it.

You can apply your critical thinking skills to statements of facts where you are in possession of the facts. In this case you are essentially calling people liars when you are not in a position to know their minds or circumstances and where you don't have all the relevant facts.

Giving people the benefit of the doubt when it comes to them stating their reasons for acting or not acting in some particular case is typically a decent thing to do, even if you personally would not behave in that way.

So, the OP is likely honest with you and all those visiting here about their motivations, as am I. And we do employ our critical thinking skills in evaluating where our next purchases are being made.

Judges aren't friggin robots. You don't get to fuck around and have them go "BEEP BOOP WELL TECHNICALLY NOT A VIOLATION BEEP BOOP".

The whole point of a judge is to, well, use his/her judgement. If this judge thinks Apple is fucking with him AGAIN, I can't imagine he'll be at all lenient. Apple is holding his authority in contempt.

I believe the GPs point is that judges do not take kindly to cat-and-mouse games, where you technically follow the court order by the letter but twist and turn it in such a way that it's spirit is violated. The order is not intended as a challenge on how to best wriggle out of it, and just because the court did not explicitly specify every last detail of how the message must be displayed does not mean that it will tolerate any tricks.

By that token, though, the court did specify what they wanted: a link, 11pt text. So they'd not afraid of specificity. If they're wanted something more attention-grabbing, they could've said it must include, e.g. "a graphic at least x pixels by y pixels."

I think another way of looking at it is this: if they don't request a particular location for the link, do they think Apple's going to put it anywhere other than the bottom of the page? And if so, the consequence (where this javascript exists or not) is that on a great number of devices you won't see it unless you scroll down.

They don't have to also specify that the text should be in a color different than the background and is not covered by a black rectangle.
There are rules for contempt of court. They include jail time. They should be applied for such repeat contempt.

What would that achieve? The people making the decisions are in the US, outside of the UK's jurisdiction. So the court would have to go after some minion in the UK office, punishing someone for the sake of punishing someone rather than for the sake of justice.

That wouldn't be a case of the Nuremberg defense, which is the excuse that "I was just following orders". It's entirely possible that none of the Apple employees in the UK were involved in the decision or implementation of how to post their court-mandated apology. In that case, the only employees in the UK's jurisdiction would be guilty only of working for the guilty corporation.

From the link: One of the most noted uses of this plea, or "defense," was by the accused in the 1945–46 Nuremberg Trials, such that it is also called the "Nuremberg defense". The Nuremberg Trials were a series of military tribunals, held by the main victorious Allied forces of World War II, most notable for the prosecution of prominent members of the political, military, and economic leadership of the defeated Nazi Germany.

You don't get it. The phrase "Nuremberg defense" is not a reference to the trials, it's a reference to the type of defense. So, if you here that in conversation, they aren't equating the situation to the holocaust, but rather the type of defense used (I was just following orders).

Indeed. Do we need studies that show people do scroll below the fold? I noticed that on the Apple homepage the modules cut off at the bottom (on my resolution) it's clear there is more to the page. Seriously, it's 2012. Do we still have to fight about 'the fold?'

I don't really care one way or the other, but I'm curious why Apple is being "shamed" in a sense. There are copyright rulings all the time but I haven't noticed or read about too many websites with notices posted on them.

Was this a condition of the plea bargain, or is this just something that is common in the UK?

And the issue is that Apple has effectively committed libel against Samsung in the UK with its repeated claims that the Samsung tablet is a copy of the iPad. This claim has turned out to be legally false, and now Apple is obliged to correct any turn of public opinion against Samsung that it instigated by making this false claim in the first place.

So it's the same libel laws that we were regarding as batshit insane just a few months ago, when they were being used to silence scientists and journalists. But since they're now being used against a company some people don't like, the tune has changed to "you don't mess with the UK courts", "they had it coming", "my judge can beat up your judge", and similar outbursts of vicarious machismo. I find the tribalism in the tech community reprehensible.

Thanks for the reply, the libel issue makes sense. I've never seen that particular type of penalty before, is that something that happens often? I've personally never noticed it before, but then again I probably have not paid attention to that kind of thing either.

the contrary, the court has explicitly found that Samsung did not infringe, so it is indeed libel.

This just shows how much of a joke the UK legal system is.

That "joke" provides the foundation for the American legal system as well as that of all commonwealth countries, are those legal systems jokes too? If the court had ruled in Apple's favour would you still be posting here calling the UK legal system a joke? (this is a rhetorical question)

And you guys getting excited about where the notice appears on the page shows just what petty and petulant jokes you are.

THe judges a couple of days ago already lambasted Apple for the wording, details such as JS will not phase judges. It is the output and end result and if somebody smells something a miss then the judges will be told. They may not be the fastest or most aware, but they do look at the end result and if they see shinangigans or even a hint of it then they will ask what is going on. If they are not happy with the answear then they bite and they can bite. Generaly there pretty firm but fair so apple needs to play ball and stop trying to be clever as it will only work against them.

> I think you too have no idea what JS is. The script basically resizes the window based on weather you're on a touch device or not.

Actually, you're the one who has no idea what JS is. I just resized a Chrome window with http://www.apple.co.uk/ loaded in it on my Windows desktop PC. As I changed the height of the window, the content above the Samsung apology was resized so that the apology would be hidden unless I scrolled down. It is most definitely not restricted to touch devices.

I'm using a fairly long screen and I can see the verdict fine. I don't think this was specifically put to get rid of the apology. More likely, the top image is always suppose to be fairly large and fit the screen well.

this is not 2001. Plenty of judges know this stuff (heck, some been favorized Facebook by slightly skewing their decisionsm, because FB helped them connect with further family) and I am sure well presented and explained case will make it through. I hope they get punished hard.

Forcing people to say something they disagree with is very dangerous. Reminds me of the ancient Catholic Church and their struggles with scientists.

What legal remedy do you feel should be available to Samsung in this case? Apple made a claim in its advertising that was found to be untruthful under the law. Why isn't it fair that they be required to publish a retraction?

Bear in mind that the UK does not have anything resembling the First Amendment in the US Constitution, and even in the US, libel in particular and false advertising in general are not considered eligible for "free speech" defenses.

What legal remedy do you feel should be available to Samsung in this case?

Again, monetary damages. Sufficient for Samsung to publicize their point of view.

Why isn't it fair that they be required to publish a retraction?

The loser in a case like this may not necessarily agree with the judge's conclusion. The judge forcing them to say something, is tantamount to forcing them to tell a lie.

Bear in mind that the UK does not have anything resembling the First Amendment in the US Constitution, and even in the US, libel in particular and false advertising in general are not considered eligible for "free speech" defenses.

I'm not saying that Apple has a free speech right to make false claims. I'm saying that they have a free speech right to not be forced to make claims by others that they may not agree with. That's a novel way of looking at free speech.

People should not be forced to say things. That's wrong. Regardless of jurisdiction.

Americans fetishise free speech beyond all reason. Yes, freedom of speech is important, but it's one right amongst many. Does Apple's right to free speech trump Samsung's right to pursue their legitimate business without being harassed?

> The loser in a case like this may not necessarily agree with the judge's conclusion. The judge forcing them to say something, is tantamount to forcing them to tell a lie.

But by doing business in that jurisdiction, you agreed to the laws. And part of that agreement is to abide by the rulings of the judges in the land they choose to do business with.

Having an opinion doesn't inherently make you right, and because what they were discussing were purely legal incarnations, believing anything other than a legal ruling with regard to a legal status is a bit crazy.

While Apple might believe they were in the right, the facts of the case are founded on legal rulings. It's one thing to be forced to change your opinion, but to be asked to state fact?

Regardless, it comes down to this: People should not be forced to say things.

I still think it's an important distinction that people did not say things, Apple did. And corporations are not people. And I really think that is an important distinction.

This is a red herring. If you market a soft drink containing cyanide, you are (rightfully) put in prison and stopped from producing it.

To address a better version of your argument. Should cigarette makers be forced to include health warnings on their products? Well, marketing a product as safe that is not safe is fraud, so if they do not do this voluntarily, then yes. The case at hand (Apple v. Samsung) is not remotely like that, though.

But not, apparently, required to tell anyone who's bought it not to drink it.

This did pretty much happen in the US and was partly why the FDA was founded. Someone created a medicine which used a solvent known to be toxic to humans because they were too lazy to check, refused to tell the pharmacies they'd sold it to to withdraw it, and couldn't legally be forced to until someone spotted a technical violation of labelling law. They called it an "elixir", and legally only stuff that used alcohol as a solvent could be named that; if they'd labelled it as "medicine" instead there'd have been no way to force a recall at all and people would've just kept on taking it.

Your original claim was that it infringes on my free speech to be forced to say something I don't agree with.

So, if a cigarette manufacturer doesn't believe his products cause cancer, your original argument would suggests that requiring a label infringes on his right free speech.

The cyanide example seems like it is a red herring because it is ridiculous. But it follows logically from your original claim.

It is legal to buy/sell cyanide. In practice, you couldn't sell it as a soft drink... but if someone believed cyanide "Tastes Great. Very Healthy. Just Drink it," they would be allowed to say that according to the position you are arguing for.

if someone believed cyanide "Tastes Great. Very Healthy. Just Drink it," they would be allowed to say that according to the position you are arguing for.

I don't know why you're claiming I argue that, because in my last post, I pre-emptively explained why I am not claiming that (because to do so would be fraudulent).

Let me reiterate.

The basic principle is: The only time force is acceptable, is in order to undo or prevent someone else's initiation of force or fraud.

You likely don't agree with that principle, but I think everyone ought to. That is what freedom actually consists of, and it's a necessary and sufficient condition for human flourishing.

How does that apply here? The government should not tell someone what they cannot (or must) say, excepting cases where that person is initiating force by what they're saying. Selling someone cianide would be such a case. Disputing whether someone copied someone else or not in a design is not such a case.

The US site has the iPad 4 featured on the homepage. All the other sites have the iPad mini featured. I'm pretty sure that once the other countries switch to the iPad 4 feature, the script will disappear as well.

I don't see what the big deal is. When I go to http://apple.co.uk I see a statement about Samsung in reasonably sized, clear print:

"On 25 October 2012, Apple Inc. published a statement on its UK website in relation to Samsung's Galaxy tablet computers. That statement was inaccurate and did not comply with the order of the Court of Appeal of England and Wales. The correct statement is at Samsung/Apple UK judgement."

Edit: Oh, I see...the statement gets pushed below the first visible page so you have to scroll to see it, which most people don't. Still, so what? Where did you guys expect them to put it? Tattooed on Tim Cook's forehead? Joe the plumber doesn't care about intellectual property disputes between electronics companies.

I see that it's problematic to point at people on the internet - but is there any proof of this? I get the impression that the whole internet knows that "Apple fanboys are like that" when there are only 2.5 people somewhere deep inside MacRumors who actually confirm the stereotype.

Man, this just keeps getting better... You think after the first time they would just have accepted the loss, put up the message, and gone on with things. It's amazing the extent they are willing to go to subvert the verdict. Of course, this is only if the script is indeed meant to push the ruling out of view...

It's interesting that without javascript the menu is less spaced-apart, and the iPad Mini image is smaller. You can see the elements shift up and down the page as you turn on/off javascript.

I do suspect that this is nefarious because the US version of the front page does not exhibit the same behavior -- i.e. disabling javascript does not move elements (and thus, the judgement) up and down the screen at all, nor does it resize the iPad mini image.

Judging from the fact that this same behavior does _not_ occur on the apple.com site, which is running the same exact promo of the iPad mini, my guess is that this is something new and not the existing behavior.

This is just a trick by Apple who don't want to admit to doing anything wrong. Expect the judge to notice this and issue another order that the text must be readable and not covered up with Javscript tricks.

While a bit deceptive, I think it's rather funny and cute. I almost get the impression that Apple is intentionally mocking the court. I know it doesn't make business sense, but it seems like they had to know they're taking a bit of a risk in not complying in full-faith.